cosmodel
10-26-06, 01:01 PM
From
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=43
Abstract:
Gravity whose nature is fundamental to the understanding of solar system, galaxies and the structure and evolution of the Universe, is theorized by the assumption of curved spacetime, according to Einstein`s general theory of relativity (EGR). Particles which experience gravity only, move on curved spacetime along straight lines (geodesics). The geodesics are determined by curved-spacetime metric. In the last year, I proposed the mirrored version of EGR, the flat-spacetime general relativity (FGR), in which particles move along curved lines on flat spacetime. This puts gravitational study back to the traditional Lagrangian formulation. The Lagragian on flat spacetime is simply taken to be the curved spacetime metric of EGR. In fact, all acclaimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR, because relativists when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, two famous tests of general relativity are about angles. All mainstream textbooks and papers calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate $ \phi $.
However, only when spacetime is flat does there exist one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem when he pioneered the concept of curved space. According to the theorem, all coordinates on a curved space are merely parameters. Real angles and distances have to be calculated by employing coefficients of the spatial metric. If we do follow the geometry of curved spacetime (EGR) then the deflection of light at the limb of the sun is 1.65 arcseconds (Crothers, 2005). The publicly cited value (1.75 arcseconds) which best fits observational data is predicted by FGR. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fits data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. That is, the claim is specious to EGR. Relativists made three specious claims as collected in the present paper. An experiment is proposed whose results will completely decide the fate of curved spacetime assumption.
============
Yesterday was the most important day in my life. My paper `Desperately Seeking Curved-Spacetime - Turn to Experimental Resolution? ` was rejected by arxiv.org. Later, I replaced my old paper astro-ph/0512614 with the rejected one. Maybe the moderators of arxiv are too busy to find out the secret. They warned me after accepted my astro-ph/0605213. They later rejected my another paper in June. During the recent months, I paid much attention to internet to listen to `crank` physicists` voices. Before today, I have still expected a regular life of assistant prefessor, study with my students for the truth of galaxies, the universe. Now I understand, I am under the foot of the giant monster of establishment. It seems I had returned to fourty years ago in the times of Chinese cultural revolutionary, a skinny boy picking up firewoods atop the remote mountain, desparately seeking hope into the unknown sky.
Last year, I thought I would win nobel prize someday by my work on galaxy patterns. Now I realize that I do not deserve it with my humble blood lineage. Because of this, I decide to stand up. I believe that the Creator of the universe be with me!
Conclusion:
(i) The First Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Einstein`s general relativity (EGR) is the theory of curved spacetime. However, his assumption brings more complexity than truth. Firstly, curved spacetime is embodied by non-trivial topology. Because topology is a very complicated mathematical subject, most relativists never take a look at it. Secondly, the concept of curved spacetime is nothing but temporal and spatial in-homogeneity. Therefore, all coordinates on a curved space are merely parameters. Real time and distance have to be calculated by employing coefficients of the spacetime metric. The calculation of time and distance by employing metric is very complicated too.
Therefore, all relativists when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. However, there is the famous Riemann theorem:
only when spacetime is flat does there exist one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time and distance, and vice verse. Therefore, the acclaimed accurate tests of GR verified the flat-spacetime interpretation of GR (my FGR). The more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fits data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. That is, the claim is specious to EGR.
(ii) The Second Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Einstein`equivalence principle is that, over any small region of space and time, all test particles move at approximately the same acceleration. Therefore, the observational frame which moves at the very acceleration will see each particle being either static or moving in straight lines at constant speeds, within the small region in question. That is, the local frame sees no gravity at all and we see a cancellation of gravity by choosing local frames, which are generally called the local freely-falling frames. Einstein thought that the local frames were the local tangent 4-dimensional planes of curved spacetime. This mistake led to the assumption of curved spacetime and resulted in ninety years` dogmatic study of gravity and cosmology: black holes, big bang, inflation, etc. I have made two points to prove Einstein`s mistake.
Firstly, a tangent plane is an inertial frame in which particles move in straight lines at constant speeds. Different particles may have different speeds but their acceleration must be zero. Speed is the first derivative to particles` coordinates while acceleration is the second derivative. Tangent plane to curved space is determined only by the first derivatives not the second derivatives. How did Einstein make such simple mistake?
Secondly, Einstein made further mistake and assumed that all local particles shared the same acceleration independent of their individual properties, that is, independent of their energy per unit mass and their angular momentum per unit mass. Energy and angular momentum have totally four degrees of freedom and Einstein required that locally particles have zero degree of freedom: sharing the same acceleration. Based on FGR (see part (vi) of Section 1), however, I proved that particles must have different local accelerations corresponding to their angular momentum and energy. If angular momentum is zero (radial motion), the formula of acceleration is (24) which depends on energy. Only when their angular momentum is zero and their energy is the minimum will the test particles share the same acceleration. In the case of earth surface, the shared acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. If the energy of test particles were high enough then the leaning tower experiment of Galileo Galilei would have demonstrated opposite result. Einstein thought the result of Galileo Galilei were universal truth and generalized this false result as his equivalence principle.
Therefore, there is no such stuff as freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity, and Einstein`s equivalence principle is completely false and serves as the second specious claim to EGR. However, a great many arguments of dogmatic gravitational theory and its applications and the theory of big bang are based on the non-existent freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity.
(iii) The Third Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Experimentalists of relativity claim that no anisotropy of light speed is observed. That is, no evidence of different light speeds is found. That means that light in vacuum demonstrates the unique value independent of its origin and reference frame. If their claim were correct then EGR must be wrong. This is because EGR is the theory of gravity and gravity introduces spatial or temporal in-homogeneity. Only if the distribution of matter were both spatially and temporally homogeneous could we have a global inertial frame where Einstein`s special relativity would be perfectly true and light speed would be constant for all inertial frames. If such homogeneity does happen and SR is perfectly true in the inertial frame then light speed is definitely anisotropic in any non-inertial frame.
Ironically, all experiments measuring light-speed anisotropy were performed on earth. The rotating earth is neither an inertial frame in FGR nor a freely falling frame in EGR.
According to EGR, light speed is constant only in the local inertial frames (the local tangent planes to curved spacetime). There is no such stuff as local freely-falling frames (see part (vi) of Section 1). Therefore, light speed in rotating earth frame is definitely anisotropic according to EGR (I look forward to some relativist who will derive the anisotropy formula of light-speed in non-inertial frames as predicted by EGR).
Light-speed anisotropy in rotational frames was proved by Sagnac experiment and relativists admitted that light speed is not constant in non-inertial frames.
Because experimental relativists claimed no measurement of light-speed anisotropy on earth frame which is against theoretical relativists` expectation, EGR is wrong. Therefore, relativists made the third specious claim to EGR.
However, my FGR has no such contradictory claims. When confronted to solar observation, to future GPB data, and even to the gravitational radiation damping data in a binary pulsar system (e.g., PSR 1913+16), it is directly verified without the panic of directly using coordinates as time, distance, or angle. EGR has no idea about galaxies while my FGR solves galaxy pattern and dynamics completely (He, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007). Consistent to FGR, my model of the universe proved the existence of the unique global inertial frame. What is more important, it is very simple and gives simple explanation to all available laws of cosmological observation. It is more consistent than Big Bang Theory (BBT). Because I have traditional flat spacetime, gravity is easily quantized (He, 2006a).
EGR and FGR are the mirrored versions of each other. If they are the only choice towards the truth of gravity then one must be real and the other is its illusory, tortuous, specious image.
References:
Berry, M.: 1989, Principles of Cosmology and Gravitation, Institute Of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia;
Brillet, A. and Hall, J.L.: 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549
Crothers, S.J.: 2005, Progress in Physics, 3, 41
He, J.: 2005a, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510535
He, J.: 2005b, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510536
He, J.: 2005c, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
He, J.: 2006a, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
He, J.: 2006b, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213
He, J.: 2007, Astrophy. &Space Sci., accepted
Hils, D. and Hall, J.L.: 1990, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1697
Klauber, R.D.: 1999, Am. J. Phys. 67, 158
Klauber, R.D.: 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604118
Magueijo, J.: 2003, Rept. Prog. Phys., 66, 2025
Muller, H. et al.: 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020401-1
Shapiro, I.I. et al.: 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett., 20, 1265
Shapiro, I.I. et al.: 1971, Phys. Rev. Lett., 26, 1132
http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=43
Abstract:
Gravity whose nature is fundamental to the understanding of solar system, galaxies and the structure and evolution of the Universe, is theorized by the assumption of curved spacetime, according to Einstein`s general theory of relativity (EGR). Particles which experience gravity only, move on curved spacetime along straight lines (geodesics). The geodesics are determined by curved-spacetime metric. In the last year, I proposed the mirrored version of EGR, the flat-spacetime general relativity (FGR), in which particles move along curved lines on flat spacetime. This puts gravitational study back to the traditional Lagrangian formulation. The Lagragian on flat spacetime is simply taken to be the curved spacetime metric of EGR. In fact, all acclaimed accurate verification of general relativity is the verification of FGR, because relativists when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. For example, two famous tests of general relativity are about angles. All mainstream textbooks and papers calculate the angles by directly using the coordinate $ \phi $.
However, only when spacetime is flat does there exist one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time, distance, angle, and vice verse. This is the famous Riemann theorem when he pioneered the concept of curved space. According to the theorem, all coordinates on a curved space are merely parameters. Real angles and distances have to be calculated by employing coefficients of the spatial metric. If we do follow the geometry of curved spacetime (EGR) then the deflection of light at the limb of the sun is 1.65 arcseconds (Crothers, 2005). The publicly cited value (1.75 arcseconds) which best fits observational data is predicted by FGR. Therefore, the more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fits data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. That is, the claim is specious to EGR. Relativists made three specious claims as collected in the present paper. An experiment is proposed whose results will completely decide the fate of curved spacetime assumption.
============
Yesterday was the most important day in my life. My paper `Desperately Seeking Curved-Spacetime - Turn to Experimental Resolution? ` was rejected by arxiv.org. Later, I replaced my old paper astro-ph/0512614 with the rejected one. Maybe the moderators of arxiv are too busy to find out the secret. They warned me after accepted my astro-ph/0605213. They later rejected my another paper in June. During the recent months, I paid much attention to internet to listen to `crank` physicists` voices. Before today, I have still expected a regular life of assistant prefessor, study with my students for the truth of galaxies, the universe. Now I understand, I am under the foot of the giant monster of establishment. It seems I had returned to fourty years ago in the times of Chinese cultural revolutionary, a skinny boy picking up firewoods atop the remote mountain, desparately seeking hope into the unknown sky.
Last year, I thought I would win nobel prize someday by my work on galaxy patterns. Now I realize that I do not deserve it with my humble blood lineage. Because of this, I decide to stand up. I believe that the Creator of the universe be with me!
Conclusion:
(i) The First Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Einstein`s general relativity (EGR) is the theory of curved spacetime. However, his assumption brings more complexity than truth. Firstly, curved spacetime is embodied by non-trivial topology. Because topology is a very complicated mathematical subject, most relativists never take a look at it. Secondly, the concept of curved spacetime is nothing but temporal and spatial in-homogeneity. Therefore, all coordinates on a curved space are merely parameters. Real time and distance have to be calculated by employing coefficients of the spacetime metric. The calculation of time and distance by employing metric is very complicated too.
Therefore, all relativists when confronting GR to observational data, calculate time, distance, or angle by directly using the coordinates in Schwarzschild solution or in post Newtonian formulation. However, there is the famous Riemann theorem:
only when spacetime is flat does there exist one coordinate system which has direct meaning of time and distance, and vice verse. Therefore, the acclaimed accurate tests of GR verified the flat-spacetime interpretation of GR (my FGR). The more claims are made that classical tests of general relativity fits data with great accuracy, the more falsified is the curved-spacetime assumption. That is, the claim is specious to EGR.
(ii) The Second Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Einstein`equivalence principle is that, over any small region of space and time, all test particles move at approximately the same acceleration. Therefore, the observational frame which moves at the very acceleration will see each particle being either static or moving in straight lines at constant speeds, within the small region in question. That is, the local frame sees no gravity at all and we see a cancellation of gravity by choosing local frames, which are generally called the local freely-falling frames. Einstein thought that the local frames were the local tangent 4-dimensional planes of curved spacetime. This mistake led to the assumption of curved spacetime and resulted in ninety years` dogmatic study of gravity and cosmology: black holes, big bang, inflation, etc. I have made two points to prove Einstein`s mistake.
Firstly, a tangent plane is an inertial frame in which particles move in straight lines at constant speeds. Different particles may have different speeds but their acceleration must be zero. Speed is the first derivative to particles` coordinates while acceleration is the second derivative. Tangent plane to curved space is determined only by the first derivatives not the second derivatives. How did Einstein make such simple mistake?
Secondly, Einstein made further mistake and assumed that all local particles shared the same acceleration independent of their individual properties, that is, independent of their energy per unit mass and their angular momentum per unit mass. Energy and angular momentum have totally four degrees of freedom and Einstein required that locally particles have zero degree of freedom: sharing the same acceleration. Based on FGR (see part (vi) of Section 1), however, I proved that particles must have different local accelerations corresponding to their angular momentum and energy. If angular momentum is zero (radial motion), the formula of acceleration is (24) which depends on energy. Only when their angular momentum is zero and their energy is the minimum will the test particles share the same acceleration. In the case of earth surface, the shared acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. If the energy of test particles were high enough then the leaning tower experiment of Galileo Galilei would have demonstrated opposite result. Einstein thought the result of Galileo Galilei were universal truth and generalized this false result as his equivalence principle.
Therefore, there is no such stuff as freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity, and Einstein`s equivalence principle is completely false and serves as the second specious claim to EGR. However, a great many arguments of dogmatic gravitational theory and its applications and the theory of big bang are based on the non-existent freely-falling frames which cancel local gravity.
(iii) The Third Specious Claim Made for EGR.
Experimentalists of relativity claim that no anisotropy of light speed is observed. That is, no evidence of different light speeds is found. That means that light in vacuum demonstrates the unique value independent of its origin and reference frame. If their claim were correct then EGR must be wrong. This is because EGR is the theory of gravity and gravity introduces spatial or temporal in-homogeneity. Only if the distribution of matter were both spatially and temporally homogeneous could we have a global inertial frame where Einstein`s special relativity would be perfectly true and light speed would be constant for all inertial frames. If such homogeneity does happen and SR is perfectly true in the inertial frame then light speed is definitely anisotropic in any non-inertial frame.
Ironically, all experiments measuring light-speed anisotropy were performed on earth. The rotating earth is neither an inertial frame in FGR nor a freely falling frame in EGR.
According to EGR, light speed is constant only in the local inertial frames (the local tangent planes to curved spacetime). There is no such stuff as local freely-falling frames (see part (vi) of Section 1). Therefore, light speed in rotating earth frame is definitely anisotropic according to EGR (I look forward to some relativist who will derive the anisotropy formula of light-speed in non-inertial frames as predicted by EGR).
Light-speed anisotropy in rotational frames was proved by Sagnac experiment and relativists admitted that light speed is not constant in non-inertial frames.
Because experimental relativists claimed no measurement of light-speed anisotropy on earth frame which is against theoretical relativists` expectation, EGR is wrong. Therefore, relativists made the third specious claim to EGR.
However, my FGR has no such contradictory claims. When confronted to solar observation, to future GPB data, and even to the gravitational radiation damping data in a binary pulsar system (e.g., PSR 1913+16), it is directly verified without the panic of directly using coordinates as time, distance, or angle. EGR has no idea about galaxies while my FGR solves galaxy pattern and dynamics completely (He, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007). Consistent to FGR, my model of the universe proved the existence of the unique global inertial frame. What is more important, it is very simple and gives simple explanation to all available laws of cosmological observation. It is more consistent than Big Bang Theory (BBT). Because I have traditional flat spacetime, gravity is easily quantized (He, 2006a).
EGR and FGR are the mirrored versions of each other. If they are the only choice towards the truth of gravity then one must be real and the other is its illusory, tortuous, specious image.
References:
Berry, M.: 1989, Principles of Cosmology and Gravitation, Institute Of Physics Publishing, Bristol and Philadelphia;
Brillet, A. and Hall, J.L.: 1979, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42, 549
Crothers, S.J.: 2005, Progress in Physics, 3, 41
He, J.: 2005a, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510535
He, J.: 2005b, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510536
He, J.: 2005c, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512614
He, J.: 2006a, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0604084
He, J.: 2006b, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213
He, J.: 2007, Astrophy. &Space Sci., accepted
Hils, D. and Hall, J.L.: 1990, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1697
Klauber, R.D.: 1999, Am. J. Phys. 67, 158
Klauber, R.D.: 2006, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0604118
Magueijo, J.: 2003, Rept. Prog. Phys., 66, 2025
Muller, H. et al.: 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 020401-1
Shapiro, I.I. et al.: 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett., 20, 1265
Shapiro, I.I. et al.: 1971, Phys. Rev. Lett., 26, 1132